If it is not possible to protect yourself, that there are few who will do it for you. If we take into account what is happening in Europe, where people are dying of peaceful streets, the availability of weapons could stop the terrorists.
Yes... for example take in to account the recent truck attacks in Berlin and France. If the citizens were armed, then they could have killed the terrorist before he managed to kill so many people. Right. Headshot a truck driver/terrorist while he is driving in a crowd. No victims possible.  |
|
|
|
There are more of them in poor countries since it costs money to get educated. It has nothing to do with poverty or education. For example, there are countries in Africa such as Equatorial Guinea and Gabon, where the per-capita income is almost at par with that in the United States. But despite this, the intelligence level of the people there remains the same as in neighboring countries. USA: GDP per capita(ppp): 57.220 USD HDI: 0,915 Equatorial Guinea: GDP per capita(ppp): 20.572 USD HDI: 0,556 Gabon: GDP per capita(ppp): 19,252 USD HDI: 0,684 Congratz to your bullshit investigation sherlock. |
|
|
|
If it is not possible to protect yourself, that there are few who will do it for you. If we take into account what is happening in Europe, where people are dying of peaceful streets, the availability of weapons could stop the terrorists.
Armed citizens dont stop terrorist. Remember 9/11 [insert any other terror attack]?¿?¿ |
|
|
|
Is the bottom in or can i still sell?  |
|
|
|
https://farefreepublictransport.com/city/Free public transport exist and there arent just two cities in east europe that have it  Seems france, poland and the us are pioneers regarding free public transport.
|
|
|
|
Hi could you explain a bit about the (first round of the) ico? 70.000 btc linked to 100.000 GB = 7 btc per 10 gb ~= 1 btc per 1.43 GB(=1430 mb?) In the 2nd and following rounds you will only receive 62,5 MB per 1 btc or less? Btw. Byteballs are for free right? It is just not well known so not many people linked their btc. I get the idea why the price is that high.... |
|
|
|
Because holding doesn't make much sense
Especially, if we are talking about an asset which has no intrinsic value of its own and could easily lose all its speculative worthiness which it has right now. I don't mean today or tomorrow, I'm trying to look further into the future. Could Bitcoin price remain the same over, say, a ten-year time span? As I see it, this is hardly possible. It is basically neck or nothing in the long run for Bitcoin, either win or get nowhere. Indeed, some people may want to hold till the end, but it simply doesn't make sense in the latter case
Bitcoin is the biggest decentralised open-source and most secure computational and financial network. How can you possibly say that it has no intrinsic value? Alone the infrastructure (i.e. asics) are worth hundreds of millions $. Bitcoin is 7 years old now and we are still at the beginning of the adoption curve (much less then 10 million user). The reason is that people want to be independent and bitcoin gives them the power to be so Beauty is in the eye of the beholder If Bitcoin lost a utility for speculation (as well as transactional utility as a currency, however small it might be), it would be worthless despite all the millions invested in mining equipment. When railroads quickly evolved in the 19th century, inland navigation declined as fast, and all those expensive ships and boats became mostly worthless. So how can this utility or value be possibly called intrinsic at all if it can be taken away so easily? Nonsense again. In your context the intrinsic value of boats and ships are the means of transportation which it still has until today and will have (atleast) in the next coming 50 years. That is why majority of goods are transported via ultra large cargo ships. Even if we would just talk about inland transport: dependent on nation, water transportation is still widely used. Also how can bitcoin lose its transactional utility? We had backlogs of 50+ mb several times this year and the price more the doubled since january. Btw. Correct would be: most of the time. Learn some grammar!
Google is your friend indeed, but you still don't have a clue what you are talking about. Most of time basically means almost always (just what you actually meant to say, though incorrectly), while most of the time refers to a specific period of time which should be understood from the context. Below is a real example from which you may try to comprehend the difference (you can also do some google-fu, there are plenty of such examples out there): It’s not about you talking most of time [i.e. always talking] but it’s about you listening the most of the time[i.e. listening when you are being talked to] If you still fail to get it, the difference is essentially the same as between most people (i.e. people collectively) and most of the people (i.e. a specific group of people). Thus, instead of claiming that you know 30 languages, you'd better master at least one Most of the time is correct because it means on most occasions - hard to believe but there are times you arent spreading bs. (Everyone can just look this up in an english dictionary) Let me paraphrase: You are spreading bullshit on most occassions. Btw. I asked a fellow who is a graduate in anglistics and he said it is correct what i said (re: most of the time) Tell me which google page said you were correct?  |
|
|
|
Really, trees don't grow to the sky. When Bitcoin price begins to stagnate, many long-term holders will like to cash out and call it a day. If Bitcoin doesn't get traction as a means of payment among merchants and service providers till then (which would render speculation inconsequential), it may suffer heavy losses and its price will decline. Obviously, we are still far from that point of saturation and can safely continue to speculate with bitcoins without risking to turn into the only ones left standing and holding the bag
It is true that at some point that the bitcoin will go down eventually but even if the price begins to stagnate people who are holding may not start selling, I mean they have supported and heled bitcoin for a long time why should they start selling when the price starts dropping, and from I see it many merchants and service providers are starting to accept it as a payment method so we shouldn’t be afraid of it going down soon Because holding doesn't make much sense Especially, if we are talking about an asset which has no intrinsic value of its own and could easily lose all its speculative worthiness which it has right now. I don't mean today or tomorrow, I'm trying to look further into the future. Could Bitcoin price remain the same over, say, a ten-year time span? As I see it, this is hardly possible. It is basically neck or nothing in the long run for Bitcoin, either win or get nowhere. Indeed, some people may want to hold till the end, but it simply doesn't make sense in the latter case Bitcoin is the biggest decentralised open-source and most secure computational and financial network. How can you possibly say that it has no intrinsic value? Alone the infrastructure (i.e. asics) are worth hundreds of millions $. Bitcoin is 7 years old now and we are still at the beginning of the adoption curve (much less then 10 million user). The reason is that people want to be independent and bitcoin gives them the power to be so. Btw. Correct would be: most of the time. Learn some grammar! |
|
|
|
Without the halving at bitcoin, and allowing all people to get the same reward of 50 bitcoin block, we would be with all coins mined and the possible value of bitcoin would be around 100-300 dollars, i doubt we would see bitcoin achieving bigger values, soo yes the halving does have a huge influence over bitcoin value.
We simply can't know that for certain Just like we can't know if the price would be exactly the same since it can be either way or somewhere in between. We can only speculate on this matter, but I'm still inclined to think that the price most likely wouldn't be the same. Is there any viable reason to think that the price could be even higher than it is now? This is also possible, for example, thanks to, say, the Winklevoss twins or people like them buying up plenty of bitcoins when the price was in lower hundreds
That must be the case for sureIt looks like you have posted in the wrong thread This thread is not about cancellation of halving and allowing limitless supply of new coins (as is the case with Dogecoin, with some reservations), which is what you seem to erroneously imply. There are only 21M bitcoins to be mined, and three fourths of them have already been mined. If all of them had been mined by now (i.e. all 21 millions), we could well expect the Bitcoin price to be the same three fourths of its current price (if we assume that all coins are supplied to the market). Anything beyond that would be pure speculation bordering on wishful thinking That makes no sense. Take a random date in 2012 and then extrapolate - we should have a price several magnitudes lower then now. |
|
|
|
Without the halving at bitcoin, and allowing all people to get the same reward of 50 bitcoin block, we would be with all coins mined and the possible value of bitcoin would be around 100-300 dollars, i doubt we would see bitcoin achieving bigger values, soo yes the halving does have a huge influence over bitcoin value.
We simply can't know that for certain Just like we can't know if the price would be exactly the same since it can be either way or somewhere in between. We can only speculate on this matter, but I'm still inclined to think that the price most likely wouldn't be the same. Is there any viable reason to think that the price could be even higher than it is now? This is also possible, for example, thanks to, say, the Winklevoss twins or people like them buying up plenty of bitcoins when the price was in lower hundreds Right that is why doge is valued so high. That must be the case for sure. |
|
|
|
There may be a lot of factors at play
I think that with the current price of crude oil over 50 dollars per barrel the Saudis should be more than happy. Yes, I know that their budget is balanced at around 90 dollars, but it is not the price of oil which seems to be playing the most important role in this game of thrones. My guess is that Trump won't be very friendly toward them up to a point of withdrawing military bases from Saudi Arabia. And that would mean the end of the royal family eventually given how much they are hated in the Islamic world (and elsewhere, for that matter)
How can you be sure that the prices of $50 per barrel are going to stay? Even if the prices stay at that level, I am afraid that the Saudis will go bankrupt soon. The war in Yemen is draining the reserves at an alarming pace. I'm not sure of that, of course Regarding Saudis going belly up, this won't happen just because of low oil prices. Do you know what their current financial position amounts to and how much they really spend on the war in Yemen? I heard they gave 1B dollars to Egypt so that it could pay for the two French helicopter carriers which had been made for Russia. If things get serious in financial aspect, they will just cut expenses (what they have been already doing anyway). In this way, it may take long time to drain the reserves unless they are drained faster for other reasons (which is what I'm alluding to) No one knows how much the Saudis are spending on the war in Yemen. All that information is classified. But you are right when saying that it will take a long time to drain the reserves. The Saudi foreign assets (as of November 2016) stands at $530 billion. The budget deficit for the year 2015-16 was $98 billion. If they are able to cut back on the spending, then they should be able to carry on for another 10 years. Also, it seems that the crude prices are stabilizing at $55-$60 levels. That's exactly what I'm thinking myself If I'm not mistaken, over a year ago their wealth fund totaled about 650-660B dollars in US Treasuries, so it seems that it could last indefinitely long given current prices of crude oil and their budget cuts. But we should not forget that the US courts allowed the American citizens to sue Saudi Arabia directly for their alleged involvement in the 911 attacks. I don't know what's come out of the lawsuit of a woman who had lost her husband in these attacks (everyone is welcome to chime in on this), but such funds can be easily expropriated by the US government at any moment, at least as long as they are held in the US My excuse for the bad grammar is that english is my 3rd language.
What is your excuse for being retarded and spreading bullshit most of the time?
If you can't get out a coherent sentence yourself, how can you possibly judge what other people are talking about? Everyone else can read your bullshit too. Why do you think the only people talking with you are either: 1. Idiots 2. Sig spammers 3. Calling you a retard And the only defense is calling me out on writing "has" instead of "have" when english is my 3rd language - you are really hilarious. Saudi budget Balaced at 90$; bankrupt soon? Or rather in some decades? You and bryant/sithara are one of the biggest suckers on this board. |
|
|
|
|
Sometimes i wonder why you are such a religious zealot even though you are able to think quite into the future.
|
|
|
|
|
As far as i know It cost 2-3 btc to put a coin on bittrex. Chances that bittrex becomes a 2nd yobit is high.
|
|
|
|
Mathematical probability says there is alien life in this universe. To what extent did it evolve is uncertain.
No it doesnt. There could be exactly one planet with life in the universe: the earth. So comets containing water only hit earth and there is no chance they hit the other trillions of earth like worlds. I think the probability of life out there is very high. Water != life |
|
|
|
Agreed but only if it's developped with some kind of redistribution of wealth (I won't say the word socialism here, it would make the whole forum come crying) because otherwise only the people owning the robots will have anything.
Redistribution of wealth is the most basic ideal of Socialism. So if you are arguing in favor of the redistribution of wealth, then you are a socialist. In my opinion, the robots must be under the ownership of the state. That will eliminate the possibility of wealth concentrating in the hands of a few individuals. Communist  |
|
|
|
Mathematical probability says there is alien life in this universe. To what extent did it evolve is uncertain.
No it doesnt. There could be exactly one planet with life in the universe: the earth. |
|
|
|
Article? Article? Article? We need facts not self opinions. And what's the funny thing, it came from foreign author which likely construct their view based on the false news heard. Make sense. Are all filipinos retarded on this board? Are you able to read??? The sucker duterte said that himself. "I've realigned myself in your ideological flow and maybe I will also go to Russia to talk to (President Vladimir) Putin and tell him that there are three of us against the world - China, Philippines and Russia. It's the only way," Duterte told his Beijing audience. Edit Go fuck off back to your gambling section and continue spamming there for sig pennies. |
|
|
|
What conditions need to be met b4 unity starts producing dividends? Else what is the point to hodl unity?
First we need to finish the platform/framework level of SuperNET, which includes Iguana & Komodo. Then we can continue to develop the reference applications we are making, such as InstantDEX and Pangea. EasyDEX is almost there, so it could start generating some revenue for its asset holders. Komodo is the thing to follow right now. You can sign up to our newsletter on komodoplatform.com website. How long do you expect will it take? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
